You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
And these so-called "top republicans" didn't have any say in their TOP NOMINEES campaign platform? What a joke. They didn't WANT this man in the first place and their lackadaisical attitudes show it.
No, Romney appeared to be all talk but when the middle class started to understand exactly what he was selling, they were not buying.
They said Romney allowed himself to be branded a corporate raider who put the interests of the wealthy above those of middle-income voters. "We didn't have effective means by which to counter the attacks...
Maybe they couldn't counter because the attacks were true! He thought he could get by without releasing his taxes. He should have released them and not apologized for following every loophole he could. That is the American way. Of course, if his taxes showed he was indeed given amnesty for illegal off-shore accounts, then he didn't belong in the White House anyhow.
Lets all be clear here, Obama had no plans either, as we see today staying his course not working so well, 439,000 applied for unemployment with more to come. It wouldnt matter what Romney offered the 51% arnt buying, the party of Santa Clause offered more with no way to pay for it and people bought it.
I have talked to a lot of long time Republican friends and none of us voted for Romney. His 47% comment turned a lot of us retirees off. We are all awaiting the details of his 5 point plan. The Repulican party also needs to get off of its fixation about not taxing the rich. When a millionaire pays less taxes than their secretary, something is wrong with that picture.
Romney gave no facts to backup his claim you could balance budget by only closing tax loopholes. But every "top" republican quoted in this article still have not given facts. What a joke
Bobby Jindal is on the right track. The rest of those quoted in the article, especially Mr. Romney himself, are living in fantasy-land. What a majority of voters heard about Mr. Romney's platform they didn't like. "You have to connect your policies to the aspirations of the American people. I don't think the campaign did that," said Jindal.
Presenting popular policy proposals isn't just alliterative; it's what we elect politicians to do. If Obama won because he did that and Romney failed to promise to do that, well, whose fault is that?
"The Republican nominee didn't acknowledge any major missteps and said his team had run a superb campaign." I don't know anybody, including die-hard supporters, who would agree with that statement. Romney was saddled with a platform that grows more unpopular every day. He had to run so far to the Right to win the nomination he had almost no chance to get back to the center of American political opinion. The GOP has a process of redefinition to go through, but they'll also need a viable candidate who has even a little bit of charisma and appeal.
If President Obama hadn't alienated some of his voters, who stayed away from the polls, given the lackluster Romney campaign, this could have been an historic landslide.
"The party of Santa Clause" - really, now. You are still playing the givers versus takers culture war? Okay, in response let's say that Romney wanted to play Santa Claus to the wealthiest 1%, and the 47% and more just didn't buy into Christmas for the rich at the expense of the middle class.
I am an independent voter who would vote for moderate Republicans if they ever showed up, anywhere (like John McCain would have been in 2000 but no longer was in 2008 due to Tea party influence). Jindal has it exactly right, the Republicans need to get a better more specific message out to the public. This is exactly what I told my Republican friends before this year's election, but none of them would acknowledge this. I want a Republican party that returns to reality and offers a more realistic brand of conservatism, not the strident exclusivist Tea Party brand.
He didn't offer specifics because of one, simple reason stated clearly by Clinton in his Convention speech: "Arithmetic". He kept making vague references to how he was going create jobs and reform the tax code, etc., that left everyone scratching their heads over the basic math of these proposals. In the end, he would have done even worse if he had tried to reveal specifics, because then everyone would have known for certain that none of it added up properly. As it was, at least a large chunk of people voted for his simple assurance that "of course it will add up; of course the numbers will work; just trust me." At least he gave himself a fighting chance by taking that approach, when all would have been lost very early on if he had tried to reveal any actual details of his "plan".
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks